Peter of England: He's going to be in REal trouble

[NG3]

Why is Chong sending a letter? I thought he was the GOOF who said his WeRe cheques had cleared?

As with the majority of claims of success Chong spoke prematurely.

I don't know if it was by design, or not, but the time delay between people claiming success, and then discovering failure, has allowed enough false reports to convince many that there is a considerable success rate, when in fact there isn't.

Throw in the fake testimonies of voyeur members (those wishing to pretend to be freemen, but not quite stupid enough to do it in real life) and these guys have duped themselves into believing this can work.

[Losleones]

I just wonder if the Head of Were Bank PToE has sent off a cheque? Peter is certainly bat shit crazy but i don't think even he is that stupid.

[rumpelstilzchen]

As with the majority of claims of success Chong spoke prematurely.

Has he actually admitted the cheques failed to clear?

[wanglepin]

Why is Chong sending a letter? I thought he was the GOOF who said his WeRe cheques had cleared?

he also said only yesterday the he "was trying seriously to prosecute peter's WeRe bank"!!!1!!!!!

[rumpelstilzchen]

he also said only yesterday the he "was trying seriously to prosecute peter's WeRe bank"!!!1!!!!!

The problem is the only available address for PoE is a mailing address.
Prosecute him for what?

[wanglepin]

The problem is the only available address for PoE is a mailing address.
Prosecute him for what?

Which just as well be C/O Bunk 12 the Doss House.

[NG3]

As with the majority of claims of success Chong spoke prematurely.

Has he actually admitted the cheques failed to clear?

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior, and theirs can at least be partially explained by this:

As i explained i am no longer at my business premises having been unlawfully evicted by the bank, they have tinned the place up so nowhere for post to be delivered.

I suspect their successes have been reversed too, but they won't know it until the postman catches up with them.

[Losleones]

Jimmy not unlike Swifty changes his mind like the wind & hasn't posted anything up to say his cheques aren't being accepted - in fact - the numbskull has stated he wants more cheques so that's 2 happy punters.........for now.

[wanglepin]

From yesterdays goofer poster peaceful_warrior

i have repeatedly stated that i have paid my council tax, non-domestic business rates and HMCTS with WeRe Bank cheques. These payments were made over 3 months ago and I have heard nothing since they were tendered.
Uttlesford District Council were the council i paid with WeRe Bank cheques at the end of May.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... f-9iTTF98E
Contact Uttlesford District Council. Tel: 01799 510510; Fax: 01799 510550; Textphone Users: 18001; Email: uconnect@uttlesford.gov.uk;
I had a short phone conversation with a woman in their financial department who tells me they

“are aware of this bank and these cheques, and it is highly unlikely they have or will accept them”.

But has said she will get back to me?

Just spoken to Karen Mullins Uttlesford District Council. she wanted a few more facts before she passes me onto someone "more senior". Questions were, who is promoting the bank, who is making these calims and when was it reported in the Guardian and when was the warning issued by FCA. looks like peaceful_warrior is in for a shock unless he's just been telling porkies when he tells his fellow goofers

i paid my council tax at the end of May with a WeRe cheque for just under £1700 the same council also, at the same time, accepted a WeRe cheque for around £7600 for non-domestic rates. HMCTS accepted a cheque in early June for £1600

[PeanutGallery]

he also said only yesterday the he "was trying seriously to prosecute peter's WeRe bank"!!!1!!!!!

The problem is the only available address for PoE is a mailing address.
Prosecute him for what?

Chong is simply being a good little sheep and following the shepherds instruction by attempting to prosecute WeRe Bank. Peter is the person who told him to do that. Peter's theory is that the banks won't help prosecute WeRe Bank because if they do then they will be admitting to the fraud everyone knows the banks have been committing. To this end he sent out instructions that if a WeRe cheque is refused the member has to demand a whole raft of information from the bank that refused the cheque in order to prosecute.

They sucker (Chong) is then instructed to take a failure to send the information as a tacit acceptance that WeRe bank is acting lawfully and to then argue that the cheque should be cleared. Of course the bank/council won't send the information because it doesn't care what action Chong takes against Peter, it only wants to receive actual real funds.

Don't think that Chong wanting to prosecute WeRe Bank is any indication that Chong has realised that Peter is a scamming scammer, it's more an indication that Chong is still guzzling down Peter's kool aid.

[guilty]

I can't see the FCA being so amused if they get wind of it though.

They 'got wind of it' very quickly after PoEs post

Good on whoever did that.

FCA says:

Thank you for your email regarding WeRe Bank. I have noted your comments and have escalated the matter to the section within the FCA who are currently dealing with this issue

[rumpelstilzchen]

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior,

Yes, but I would be interested to know if Chong has actually admitted his cheques failed. Has he claimed success, then announced he was wrong and the cheques have not cleared, then said he is sending a letter, or has he claimed success, missed out the middle part and gone straight to announcing he is writing a letter? I don't recall reading a post where he admits his cheques did not work.

[wanglepin]

FCA says:

Thank you for your email regarding WeRe Bank. I have noted your comments and have escalated the matter to the section within the FCA who are currently dealing with this issue

Peter and his bank were reported at the time of the launch (back in May) see other thread. His Freeman Legal Services were also reported at the same time.

[Jeffrey]

Peter plays fast and loose with the facts in the USA video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINd7Zg ... e=youtu.be

Around minute 1 he claims checks can be presented if they have the banks contact information. Little problem, Peter changed phone numbers, all American checks phoning to present a WeRe bank check are calling a phone number that doesn't work.

Then there's the same basic problem, the banks clearly do present the checks to Peter incurring costs and losses by having to mail checks to the UK, but Peter refuses to clear them.

Peter then cites the UN convention on Bills of Exchange:
http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/tex ... X_12_e.pdf

Problem #1: the convention as adopted does not apply to checks.
Problem #2: No where in the convention does it say that "there is an obligation for the to present" as Peter claims in 4:00

4:45 is good "they don't know if the check will clear until they present it"

[wanglepin]

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior,

Yes, but I would be interested to know if Chong has actually admitted his cheques failed. Has he claimed success, then

He hasn't quite made it clear who it is he is sending this letter to. It could be to those who refused his cheques. It could be to Pof E seeing he wants to "prosecute " the bank?

[PeanutGallery]

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior,

Yes, but I would be interested to know if Chong has actually admitted his cheques failed. Has he claimed success, then announced he was wrong and the cheques have not cleared, then said he is sending a letter, or has he claimed success, missed out the middle part and gone straight to announcing he is writing a letter? I don't recall reading a post where he admits his cheques did not work.

Chong doesn't strike me as being all that quick on the uptake. I'd reason that his position is that the Cheques haven't worked yet, but no doubt he will follow all the woo and get it done right/fail and be told by Peter it was his fault for not doing it while standing with one foot in a bucket of custard.

[NG3]

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior,

Yes, but I would be interested to know if Chong has actually admitted his cheques failed.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... f_Qq1UViko

They did accept the cheque, even Peter got in touch to say he had spoken to their bank and cleared it.
Then I was told Peter was keeping all the loot and my balance was still outstanding,

[guilty]

FCA says:

Thank you for your email regarding WeRe Bank. I have noted your comments and have escalated the matter to the section within the FCA who are currently dealing with this issue

Peter and his bank were reported at the time of the launch (back in May) see other thread. His Freeman Legal Services were also reported at the same time.

I know. I was part of that reporting. This response is about Peter's specific claims that:

THE FCA IS TELLING YOU TO PROCEED......PROCEED WITH YOUR DEALINGS WITH WeRe Bank

[Skeleton]

FCA says:

Peter and his bank were reported at the time of the launch (back in May) see other thread. His Freeman Legal Services were also reported at the same time.

I know. I was part of that reporting. This response is about Peter's specific claims that:

THE FCA IS TELLING YOU TO PROCEED......PROCEED WITH YOUR DEALINGS WITH WeRe Bank

Nice one mate, I think Peter has really shot himself in the foot doing this. He is to be congratulated.

[Pox]

Why is Chong sending a letter? I thought he was the GOOF who said his WeRe cheques had cleared?
..

Because many of them are reluctant to admit their own failures, they often say that the steps taken are not for themselves but to help out a partner/neighbour/child/parent etc.

If Chong were challenged as to why he needs to write such a letter,he may well use the above.

It's just 'unfortunate' that he wrote otherwise about failed cheques earlier on the GOOFY forum.